Diddy Made Me Do it
ALBANY, N.Y. -- The Associated Press reported yesterday that P. Diddy has to cough-up a big chunk of change to support his 12 year old son.
How much change?
Take a guess.
Was it:
A) $200.00 per month
B) $2,000 per month
C) $20,000 per month
On Tuesday, New York state's highest court refused to hear Diddy's appeal of the lower court order for him to pay a nearly $20,000 per month in "child support."
What's wrong with this picture?
Last I checked, it costs much less than $20k per month to raise a kid.
In fact, even by conservative estimates, it comes nowhere close to the second option of $2,000 per month. On top of that, Diddy and Mom were never married, so the prospect for de facto alimony should be nowhere in the mix.
The order issued last year by the state's Appellate Division came after Diddy's appeal of a Court ruling that he pay $35,000 a month. Apparently, his ex- had sued for higher monthly payments and nearly $400k in back support, but the Court found that was obviously a bit excessive. Go figure. Of course, she'll more than double that amount within a year or so.
What, praytel, will she do with all of that money? Support their son?? Shudder to think that the State would use him as a pawn for political or economic gain.
I can't imagine how much they'll make on him each year in Federal Child Support Reimbursement Incentive Grant Funds. (66 cents x 20k/month). No conflict of interest there.
Granted, Diddy has the dough. But does that make it fair or even just?
Most people with half a brain will disagree that any parent should pay that much money in "support" regardless of how much Dad brings home.
The broader question that should get more of our policymakers to think about this issue is: if it can't be right to tax Diddy at 20% of his take-home pay, (and can't be declared as a tax write-off) how can it be right to do the same for someone in a much lower income bracket?
And they wonder why we have a problem in some communities with collecting child support and keeping fathers actively involved in their children's lives.
How much change?
Take a guess.
Was it:
A) $200.00 per month
B) $2,000 per month
C) $20,000 per month
On Tuesday, New York state's highest court refused to hear Diddy's appeal of the lower court order for him to pay a nearly $20,000 per month in "child support."
What's wrong with this picture?
Last I checked, it costs much less than $20k per month to raise a kid.
In fact, even by conservative estimates, it comes nowhere close to the second option of $2,000 per month. On top of that, Diddy and Mom were never married, so the prospect for de facto alimony should be nowhere in the mix.
The order issued last year by the state's Appellate Division came after Diddy's appeal of a Court ruling that he pay $35,000 a month. Apparently, his ex- had sued for higher monthly payments and nearly $400k in back support, but the Court found that was obviously a bit excessive. Go figure. Of course, she'll more than double that amount within a year or so.
What, praytel, will she do with all of that money? Support their son?? Shudder to think that the State would use him as a pawn for political or economic gain.
I can't imagine how much they'll make on him each year in Federal Child Support Reimbursement Incentive Grant Funds. (66 cents x 20k/month). No conflict of interest there.
Granted, Diddy has the dough. But does that make it fair or even just?
Most people with half a brain will disagree that any parent should pay that much money in "support" regardless of how much Dad brings home.
The broader question that should get more of our policymakers to think about this issue is: if it can't be right to tax Diddy at 20% of his take-home pay, (and can't be declared as a tax write-off) how can it be right to do the same for someone in a much lower income bracket?
And they wonder why we have a problem in some communities with collecting child support and keeping fathers actively involved in their children's lives.
posted by Michael Burns at 5:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home